The Archaeology of Violence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter One Introduction An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Violence Sarah Ralph s a modern society, we are continuously reminded of the threat, action, and consequences Aof violence. Global news and media coverage means violence can be experienced closer in space and time, and in some instances people may decide to visit places associated with death and violence to experience for themselves the locations where such acts occurred (Lennon and Foley 2002; Sharpley and Stone 2009). In modern day contexts, perhaps as a result of a growing concern with our own mortality, violence has become a product to be consumed by society and plays an increasingly significant role in the formation of social and political relations. However, can the same be said for the past? Perpetuated through the notion of primitivism and the idea of the “noble savage,” the past was considered a peaceful time where humans were at one with nature and did not want for anything. The romanticism of the noble savage and the belief that primitivism brought with it peace, equality, and harmony with nature was reinforced by the works of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Writing in the eighteenth century, Rousseau noted, “nothing is more peaceable than man in his primitive state” (1984 [1755]:115). Civilization, it was perceived, threatened to alter our “primitive and natural state,” and bring with it disharmony, war, and inequality. This was, of course, written in response to Hobbes’s observation that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man” (Hobbes 1996 [1651]:88). For Hobbes, life in its natural state (without government), would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (ibid.:88–89). Lawrence H. Keeley has most prominently challenged this view of a peaceful past in his publication, War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (1996). This led to numerous archaeological studies that have served to reinforce the notion that vio- lence was present in past societies (Guilance and Zammit 2005; LeBlanc 2003; Martin and 1 © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany Chapter01.indd 1 15/11/12 1:37 AM 2 Introduction Frayer 1997b). While its presence is now recognized, the evidence for violence in past societies should not be overemphasized by researchers. Data certainly suggest that violence was (and is) an integral part of culture and society (Martin and Frayer 1997a:xx), but its frequency and permanency requires careful consideration. An increased interest in the study of violence, particularly from an archaeological per- spective, cannot go unnoticed. Anthropological studies have a well-established heritage in this subject area (e.g., Chagnon 1983; Ember and Ember 1997; Ferguson 1984, 1995; Gardner and Heider 1968; Haas 1990; Otterbein 2004; Riches 1986; Schmidt and Schröder 2001; Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004; Sillitoe 1978), and archaeological research has drawn heavily from this literature base. Many studies of violence are defined either by their subject specialism, or by a specific temporal or geographical focus (e.g., Chacon and Mendoza 2007; Koontz and Orr 2009; Parker Pearson and Thorpe 2005; Tiesler and Cucina 2007; Turner and Turner 1999). In addition, scholarly attention has primarily been directed toward the study of warfare, through studies of its associated material culture (such as weaponry), as well as its motivations and consequences (e.g., Arkush and Allen 2006; Carman and Harding 1999; Dillon and Welch 2006; Kelly 2000; Nielsen and Walker 2009; Otto et al. 2006). Sometimes, this focus on warfare has been to the detriment of our understanding of other forms of “non-warfare” violence. As James notes (this volume) the term violence has become synonymous with warfare, and vice versa, in many archaeological studies. This lack of clar- ity and distinction has the potential to affect the ways in which “violence” is recognized and discussed by scholars, and ultimately has repercussions for understanding its role in society: an issue addressed in part by Martin and Frayer (1997b). Their edited volume evaluated evidence for non-warfare violence from hunter-gatherer to state societies in the New and Old Worlds, with particular emphasis on osteological data. The difficulties of producing an acceptable definition of violence have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Walker 2001; Carman 1997a). It is recognized that the creation of a single definition of violence is impractical for its meaning is relative to the society or cul- ture being studied (Guilaine and Zammit 2005:233). Violence, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED 2010) is: The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom. Representing a modern-day view of violence, this cannot take into account the poten- tial for multiple interpretations and meanings, nor variation based on cultural and social contexts, and specific disciplinary approaches. As a result, violence could include any action that intends to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something (Martin and Frayer 1997a:xiv). This only further highlights the problems in establishing a wide-ranging definition of vio- lence so that it can be applied to a multitude of cultures that vary in both time and space (Krohn-Hansen 1994:368). Approaching the subject of violence from the perspective of one single discipline does not allow for sufficient interaction with multitemporal, spatial, and cultural datas- ets. The adoption of an interdisciplinary approach to violence can provide the opportu- nity to consider this subject from a cross-cultural perspective. This volume1 represents an © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany Chapter01.indd 2 15/11/12 1:37 AM Introduction 3 opportunity to address some of these issues by presenting the work of scholars from a num- ber of disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, classics, and art history, all of whom have an interest in understanding the role of violence in their respective specialist fields in the Mediterranean and Europe. This interdisciplinary approach to the study of violence provides a forum in which to compare evidence for violence; and highlights the need, and importance, of cross-disciplinary interactions if we are to understand the causes and conse- quences of violence in its broader social and cultural contexts. The papers in this volume consider both non-warfare violence and warfare through a study of skeletal remains, iconography, literature, landscapes, and ritual behavior. Violence played an important role in the development of past sociopolitical systems, and therefore its archaeological, anthropological, literary, and iconographic identification is an essential part of our understanding of social change, both on a micro- as well as the macro-scale. Studying the materiality of violence (in this particular case skeletal remains, architecture and land- scapes, iconography, objects, or written sources) allows us to consider the multiplicity of meanings afforded to violence, and to develop a more comprehensive appreciation and understanding of both its cause(s), consequence(s), and impact(s) upon society. In order to develop such an approach this volume focuses on, and is structured around, three themes: the contexts of violence; the politics and identities of violence; and sanctified violence. Contexts of Violence Any research concerned with the past has with it a potential inherent source of bias, namely, a contemporary perspective of the past. It is only when these contemporary views and agendas are projected onto past societies, and past peoples are ascribed contemporary motivations, that analysis and interpretation can become flawed and misrepresentative. The semantics of violence have been shown to be incredibly difficult (see above, and Krohn-Hansen 1994). Meanings differ across time and space, but also from discipline to discipline (Guilaine and Zammit 2005:233; Walker 2001:575). Opinions on the definition of violence can vary between different cultures, but also from person to person within a particular cultural group (Krohn-Hansen 1994:367–368; Walker 2001:575). Robb’s (2008) work on the Huron torture of Iroquois prisoners and its misunderstanding by Jesuit missionaries emphasizes the need to identify cultural-specific attitudes toward violence. Although both parties tor- tured individuals, the Jesuits were unable to comprehend what they had witnessed and the motives behind the Huron torturing of prisoners. “The French did not object to torturing people to death per se, but it had to be on their own terms” (ibid.:96). The recognition and study of context is of vital importance, for events or activities do not take place in a blank space devoid of meaning. As Carman notes, “[V]iolent acts…are directed against people or things by other people and arise in each case out of a particular set of circumstances” (1997b:225). Therefore, much like archaeological excavations, the interpreta- tion of artifacts and their contribution to our understanding of the society that produced them become worthless once they are removed from their context. As a result context provides the means in which to interpret evidence, and to develop a fuller understanding of the data and the reasons behind why an event took place, who was involved, and where it took place. © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany Chapter01.indd 3 15/11/12 1:37 AM 4 Introduction This section considers the variety of manifestations of violent interactions and their identification by archaeologists. Four papers are presented, each of which is concerned with a particular time period and specific set of archaeological data. Schulting addresses the apparent disparity between an absence of specialized weapons and the wealth of skeletal evidence for interpersonal violence during the European Neolithic.